|
Post by wildgm on Dec 3, 2011 13:19:45 GMT -5
That is the only two prospects I have based ratings from their playing time in the NHL is Nugent-Hopkins and Larsson, which I did not think was a problem as they were drafted first and second overall in our draft (and the NHL), and as Edmonton and PJ have pointed out they should be rated that little bit higher. Also it is clear that in real life they are better/more developed that the rest of the draft class as they are the only two prospects to be given key roles on their respective NHL team at such an early stage of their career. I wasn't going to say anything about Landeskog's ratings (ie, being worse than Grimaldi) but really??? If you get a boost for being the #2 overall pick in the NHL, how about giving that boost to the guy who actually was the #2 pick instead of the one who went #4? And if those two guys are the only ones with key roles on their NHL teams, why is Landeskog averaging more ice time than RNH? Seeing that Landeskog is a 8.0 on HF and RNH/Larsson are higher I certainly expected that to be reflected in the ratings, but if that's the criteria you're using at least be consistent. This is a very specific biased bitch about my own player, but it has a place in this thread because it highlights the need to be CONSISTENT no matter what with whatever criteria the league does choose to use.
|
|
|
Post by leafs on Dec 3, 2011 13:29:01 GMT -5
all i'm saying is there are no guarantees with prospects....there's a chance Huberdeau could be a first liner, and there's a chance he could be a third liner....it's just the way historically prosects go...they aren't always guaranteed to be top line NHLers. RNH has proven already he's a top line player and should be rated as such. 30 games doesn't prove your a top line player or else the Leafs would still have Wellwood, Steen and Stajan.....And thats not ment to be a comparison of those guys and RNH but all I'm saying is that using 30 NHL games to judge whether or not a prospect is elite is really what's dangerous. I don't think RNH is going to fall off the face of the Earth but who knows? PJ is simply saying that its not an even playing field.....you need to rate all prospects on their first NHL season or none of them.....you can't use NHL stats for some guys just because they made the NHL earlier and appear to be better then the rest of the draft class......the truth is we don't know if they are better we just know that they are more developed and more ready to step into the NHL, but that doesn't make them better prospects
|
|
|
Post by bluejacketsgm on Dec 3, 2011 13:59:51 GMT -5
I miss Pat Falloon
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Dec 3, 2011 14:23:56 GMT -5
Ive chatted with PJ into the topic... and I think he understands my thinking etc...
In response to Minnesota - I am happy with how ive created Landeskog... if you read his HF profile is clearly says "Landeskog is a good offensive player but his skills might not be elite enough to produce big numbers at the NHL level" hence why his offensive stats are not as good as some of the other prospects!
Also I believe I have been consistent! I can show that in multiple places... the issue is that I have taken NHL experience into account... and that really is only on two players who happen to have been taken 1st and 2nd overall in our draft! So I truly do not think consistency is an issue and I hope most other GM's agree with that statement!
I want to chat with Nick before I comment anymore... I have already chatted with PJ and we are both of a similar understanding! Just want to speak to Nick so he fully understands everything!
|
|
|
Post by wildgm on Dec 3, 2011 14:34:47 GMT -5
Which is why I wasn't going to say anything, but if you say "I considered X and Y on these two guys and only these two guys because they're the only ones it applies to" and that's clearly not factually true, I'm going to have a problem with that.
|
|
|
Post by oilersgm on Dec 3, 2011 14:42:20 GMT -5
what a crock this is !!! If it's going to be this hard to decide don't create them till they play in the nhl.
|
|
|
Post by sensgm on Dec 3, 2011 14:43:50 GMT -5
I can see what your saying... I think my wording could have been a bit better! I wasnt particularly creating them their roles in the NHL! I was trying to state that they were pretty much the only two prospects I had taken an element of NHL experience into account with when creating them and that in real life they are that bit better.
Also I dont think I would have made Landeskog much differently even if I had taken his NHL experience into account... thats why ive said that only Hopkins and Larsson are the only two prospects that were seriously affected by their NHL experience.
|
|
|
Post by LosAngelesGM on Dec 3, 2011 15:04:32 GMT -5
Everyone,
Tom and I spoke. I expressed my concerns and part of Nicks, and Tom expressed his thoughts on how he was making prospects. We see each others point. We are going to talk with Nick to see what the best way to go is with this issue.
I am not for only creating prospects once they play in the NHL, because some guys may not play for 2-3 years, and we would have at least 4-6 seasons complete by then. It would make any prospects not in the top 15 useless.
We will figure this all out. Please be patient.
Thanks, PJ
|
|
|
Post by ECFHL Commissioner on Dec 3, 2011 15:12:54 GMT -5
Unfortunately my laptop is acting up and I'm in the process of getting it back to 100%.
Email or PM through here will be the best way to get ahold of me
|
|
|
Post by LosAngelesGM on Dec 3, 2011 16:41:49 GMT -5
Oh christ. Heard this one before. Next thing we hear is the sim files are corrupt and his laptop is broke. Bye bye ECFHL lol
|
|